Quite simple, really. Because under the authoritarian rule of a Chavez or a Putin, specialists in weakening institutions that hinder their actions, elections and their results are much more questionable. Note that Chavez rules and Chavez wins, Putin rules (in person or through an ally) and Putin wins. PAN rules and it ends up achieving a poor third place, with the opposition winning.

More or less accurate description.I liked the phone interview on Mexico´s economy better, it highlighted several specific relevant issues.

Regarding Drug policy, it is not a sin to just answer "I do not know".Of course every Mexican President does deals with the Drug Cartels, at various levels.It would be irresponsible not to.The only question is whether the Sinaloa Cartel will remain the Government´s favorite, as it was under PAN, or change back to CDG or their successors, the Zetas, as it was under the last two PRI administrations. Probably he will stick mostly with Sinaloa, for three reasons: they have renounced to parallel state building, unlike Zetas and La Familia Michoacana; they are by far the stronger group and fighting them would be bloodier; and they have self-limited their scope to drug-trafficking(not extortion, kidnapping etc), and are therefore popular in areas under its control.

Let´s hope Peña turns a page on this senseless war on drugs and buys his nation a new image.Tourism could easily be a far greater industry in Mexico than drugs(which account for 3% of GDP) if only he launches a sustained PR campaign in the US to that effect.He has been running for President for six years and image building is his forte, let´s wish he puts that persistence and ability to this specific good use.

How nonchalantly do they dismiss the objections to the electoral process in Mexico, just because a purely pro-capitalist candidate benefited from the irregularities. I wonder why they do not give the same benefit of the doubt to Putin or Lukashenko. Let alone Chavez who clearly won election after election.

Not really, you are one who cares what happens in Mexico, more than you think even you know we have never been able to govern effectively, to know that is because you have taken time to know about Mexico

Trough the years, mexican history has shown time after time that PRI is not the best opcion for mexican policy. In the last few days Mexico has lived in at atmophere of corruption that has been cleary exposed not only by the left parties but for many politically aware citizens. There are many powerful people behind Peña Nieto and I am clearly disagree with the opinion of the interviewee; although Peña Nieto is young it does not mean that he has no tendencies of the old PRI, however it is well known that powerful political figures back him on.
It is sad for me to realize that Mexico continued to live years of violence, abuse and corruption.

Peña Nieto (PRI) is the representant of the old politcial system, he definetly means corruption, one thing that will happen surely with him is acts of corruption. Peña Nieto has spent millions of dollar in its own image. The political party (PRI) has governed the states (Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Cohauila) where violence has increased notably. Peña Nieto is not good for democracy, and not good fot economics.

"Liberal democracy conquers the former Warsaw Pact nations, with Russia and one or two Balkan states the exeptions. It also conquers the southern cone of Latin America, much of the Far East, and few other places. In much of the developing world, though, democracy exist more in name than in fact, often taking the form of "hebrid" regimes.Mexico holds successful elections, but has dificulty building institutions such as police, schools and reliable law courts; the result is barely manageable turmoil. India remains officially a "democratic sucess story," but only if one avoids the ground-level reality of urban gangs, fixed local elections , the growing scarcity of water, and vigilante justice. Both India and Mexico are undermined by a volcano of unemployed youth in urban slums that results in the formation of volatile populist movements; nevertheless, both these flawed democracies survive and generate high-tech industries.Indonesia, Nigeria,and other countries are not so lucky, though what emerges there is not headline-grabbing, Somalia-style breakdowns but simply a higher degree of chronic unrest than India and Mexico. Cultural and Civilizational stresses, as well as demographic and envilomental ones, are everywhere apparent." Robert D. Kaplan